“Cohabitation” and Interpretation of Separation Agreement’s Provisions Applicable to Maintenance
Law Office of Alexander Korotkin, Esq.
A typical separation agreement that provides for post-divorce maintenance will have a number of provisions describing circumstances under which such maintenance can be terminated. One of the more common clauses speaks of the spousal maintenance being terminated where the former spouse is cohabitating with another adult of the opposite sex for a period of time. Most separation agreements do not define cohabitation, but the courts have held that in order for cohabitation to take place, there must be a sexual relationship, as well as a degree of economic partnership between the former spouse and the unrelated adult of the opposite sex. In Graev v. Graev, __ N.Y.3d __ (October 21, 2008) the Court of Appeals had to decide whether the term “cohabitation” as included in the parties’ separation agreement was unambiguous and whether the prior standard utilized by the courts was still valid. In a 4-3 opinion, a divided Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that “cohabitation” is an ambiguous term whose definition for purposes of potential violations of separation and divorce agreements depends on what the parties understood it to mean when making their settlements. While all of the judges agreed that a couple need not share household expenses or function as a single economic unit to be cohabitating, the Court was divided over how to resolve the dispute between Linda and Lawrence Graev and the $11,000 in monthly maintenance fees he contends she forfeited by living with a boyfriend for at least 60 straight days in violation of their separation agreement. Since the Court of Appeals held that the term “cohabitation” as contained in the parties’ separation agreement was ambiguous, it remanded the case back to the trial court to hold a fact-finding hearing to determine what the parties’ understanding of this term was at the time the separation agreement was executed. As the Court of Appeals pointed out in the footnote, “[t]he wisest rule, of course, is for parties in the future to make their intentions clear by careful drafting.”